ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Contamination Rates and Economic Evaluation of Reusing Medicated, Preservative-Free, Single-Use Eye Drops.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPreservative-free eye drops are commonly packaged in single-dose vials, so it is recommended to discard the vial upon first use, even if some solution remains. This study aims to examine the risk of infection associated with repeated use of these eye drops and evaluate the economic impact of such practice.
methodsEighty vials were divided into three test groups and one control group (C). Group A comprised sterile installation; in group B the vial tip touched the volunteers' eyelid while in group D the volunteers' fingertip touched the vial tip. The vials were then recapped and kept in the refrigerator for 24 h. Next, the remaining solution in each vial was cultured, as well as group C vials and contamination and infection rates were compared between each group against the control. The infection probabilities were applied to a decision tree model to compare the cost of reusing the vials.
resultsGroup A pathogenic contamination was detected in four out of 20 individual vials tested (20%), p = 0.11, while group B had only a single contamination (5%), p > 0.99; finally, group D demonstrated five contamination incidents (25%), p < 0.04. This was the only group that showed a significantly higher rate of infection (pathogenic rate) as an indicator of the importance of the instillation technique. The cost and savings ratio ranged from Egyptian Pounds (EGP) 20.1 to EGP 20.4 for the base case (i.e., assuming that both opportunistic and pathogenic bacteria were infectious, while commensal bacteria were not) according to the different instillation techniques.
conclusionWithin this hypothetical economic model, reusing single-use vials within 24 h demonstrated potential cost savings independent of the instillation technique. Further real-world studies are warranted as actual experienced patients are expected to provide pragmatic conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42717161What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.